In
<f5833273385bb34f99288b3648c4f06f13512df...@exch-c2.corp.cloudmark.com>,
on 08/03/2011
at 06:33 AM, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email protected]> said:
>It's referring to a list of use cases that the ARF was not designed
>to handle.
What about reports[1] to LE? Is that worth considering in the future?
>The issue is whether it's reasonable for an "abuse@" address to
>accept only reports that are ARFs.
IMHO that's a form of spam support. OTOH, if someone publishes a
separate address for reports in ARF format, then IMHO it's reasonable
to reject anything in *that* mailbox that's not ARF.
>It's caused quite a bit of trouble, not the least of which being the
>three co-authors of ARF getting a lot of "I hope you're happy"
>hate-mail.
I'd regard such complaints as misdirected and the authors as wingnuts.
Yahoo never needed ARF to ignore legitimate complaints.
[1] Especially for spam associated with crimes against persons
rather than just the intrinsic crimes against property.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
Atid/2 <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
_______________________________________________
marf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
